My first reaction is that this is bad decision theory.
It makes sense to actualize on strikes when the party it’s against would not otherwise be aware of or willing to act on the preferences of people whose product they’re utilizing. It can also make sense if you believe the other party is vulnerable to coercion and you want to extort them. If you do want fair trade and credibly believe the other party is knowing and willing, the meta strategy is to simply threaten your quorum, and never actually have to strike.
We don’t seem to be in the case where an early strike makes sense. The major reaction to this post is not of an unheard or silenced opposition, but various flavours of support. In order for the moderators to cede to your demand, they have to explicitly overrule a greater weight of other people’s preferences on the basis that those people will be less mean about it. But we’re on LessWrong, people here are not broadly open to coercion.
Additively, we also don’t seem to be in a world where your preferences have been marginalized beyond the degree that they’re the minority preference. The moderators clearly spent a huge personal cost and took a huge time delay precisely because preferences of your kind are being weighed heavily.
Given the moderators are presumably not going to act on this, and would seemingly be wrong to do so, this comment reads as someone hurting themselves and others to make moderation incentives worse. Harming people to encourage bad outcomes is not something LessWrong should endorse.
I respect the integrity and strength of person needed to take a personal cost to defend someone against a harm, or a moral position. I think it’s honourable to credibly threaten to act in self-sacrificial ways. Yet, there are right and wrong ways to do this. This one strikes me as wrong.
My first reaction is that this is bad decision theory.
It makes sense to actualize on strikes when the party it’s against would not otherwise be aware of or willing to act on the preferences of people whose product they’re utilizing. It can also make sense if you believe the other party is vulnerable to coercion and you want to extort them. If you do want fair trade and credibly believe the other party is knowing and willing, the meta strategy is to simply threaten your quorum, and never actually have to strike.
We don’t seem to be in the case where an early strike makes sense. The major reaction to this post is not of an unheard or silenced opposition, but various flavours of support. In order for the moderators to cede to your demand, they have to explicitly overrule a greater weight of other people’s preferences on the basis that those people will be less mean about it. But we’re on LessWrong, people here are not broadly open to coercion.
Additively, we also don’t seem to be in a world where your preferences have been marginalized beyond the degree that they’re the minority preference. The moderators clearly spent a huge personal cost and took a huge time delay precisely because preferences of your kind are being weighed heavily.
Given the moderators are presumably not going to act on this, and would seemingly be wrong to do so, this comment reads as someone hurting themselves and others to make moderation incentives worse. Harming people to encourage bad outcomes is not something LessWrong should endorse.
I respect the integrity and strength of person needed to take a personal cost to defend someone against a harm, or a moral position. I think it’s honourable to credibly threaten to act in self-sacrificial ways. Yet, there are right and wrong ways to do this. This one strikes me as wrong.